Answer to a Question
The US Influence on India’s Policy to Confront China
Question:
On 7/4/2014, the general elections in India commenced, continuing until 12/5/2014, with results expected on 16/5/2014. Two major political blocs are competing: the US-linked Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its alliance, and the pro-British Congress Party. Since its return to power in 2004, the Congress Party has shown a slow pace in its relationship with America due to its ties with Britain and has displayed apprehension in confronting China. The question is: To what extent does America influence India’s policy in confronting China? How does this relate to America's Asia-Pacific strategy and its mobilization of Australia and Japan for this confrontation? Will this policy be significantly affected by the type of ruling party in India, whether it is the BJP or the Congress Party? Does India have the capacity to confront China? And what is the balance of power between China and India?
Answer:
The answer to these questions becomes clear by reviewing the following points:
America is working to encircle China through its surrounding countries and in the Pacific Ocean, particularly in the East and South China Seas. It is building various forms of alliances and blocs and strengthening relations with countries there for this purpose. This began more than a decade ago and became serious when America saw that the policy of containing China had reached its limit or saturation point. It had previously approached China by bringing it into the World Trade Organization (WTO), and trade relations increased; the US-China strategic dialogue was no longer as sensitive as before. However, China did not fall into the American orbit, nor did it even become an ally under that policy. America could not limit China's ambitions to establish hegemony over the East and South China Seas—regions China considers vital and existential. China remained a state that preserved its entity, cohesion, and independence as a major regional power working to bolster its military and economic strength. It began utilizing its economic power for political influence in some regions, not just for profit, and worked to enhance its influence in its region, which contradicts American policy and threatens American influence. China has regional ambitions to control its vicinity, which it considers vital, and it does not want to be confined to the mainland as merely a large economic state. America also considers the China Seas region vital for itself; in its arrogance, America is not satisfied with being a regional power within the borders of the Americas but considers the entire world its domain! Therefore, it competes with China in its own region to expand international American hegemony. Thus, the policy of containment through trade relations and strategic dialogues did not make China revolve in the American orbit, nor even an ally in the known sense. Rather, its regional policy began to worry America. Consequently, the policy of containment alone was no longer effective. America then began implementing its new "Asia-Pacific" plan, which requires mobilizing about 60% of its naval force to this region. This is in addition to the policy of encircling China by occupying it with issues in its regional sphere. America focused its efforts on moving the countries of the region toward this encirclement policy, the most prominent of which are three that can effectively influence this encirclement: India, Japan, and Australia.
As for India, it shares a 3,488 km border with China, with outstanding issues regarding these borders. For a quarter of a century, rounds of talks have been held, the latest being the 14th round for border demarcation, after which they stopped and the 15th round was not held. On 15/4/2013, Chinese soldiers crossed the border with India, entered Indian territory in the Ladakh region, and set up tents, but withdrew after three weeks. This was a demonstrative operation by China toward India to send a message that China is ready to cross the border and engage in war, as happened in October 1962 when the Chinese army launched an attack on the Arunachal Pradesh region and expelled Indian forces. A month after that operation, Chinese forces launched a second attack on Indian territory, killing about 2,000 Indians. This issue remains unresolved and is called the "Line of Actual Control" (LAC); it is a flashpoint between the two countries that creates constant tension. This is in addition to the tension resulting from the problem of the Tibet region, which China occupied in 1950 and which borders India. India joins America in stirring up this problem by hosting the Buddhists of this region and their leader, the Dalai Lama, where India established the Central Tibetan Administration as a government in exile. All these factors keep the tension between India and China alive and restless.
America tried to exploit these tensions between China and India by pushing India to confront China or by stirring up problems between them to distract China with this issue. However, India fears a land confrontation with China, and the aggressive Chinese messages on India's borders speak to this. Consequently, America needed incentives for India to encourage it to continue bothering China and keeping it occupied with border problems. Thus, America established a strategic partnership with India and concluded a nuclear cooperation agreement. The United States also signed several economic and security agreements with India; a defense agreement was signed in 2005 and a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in 2008, all of which expand the horizon of security cooperation between them. As a result, the two countries are currently engaged in many unprecedented joint military maneuvers, and large sales of American weapons to India are constantly increasing. When the Indian Army Chief of Staff, General Deepak Kapoor, stated at the end of December 2009: "the Indian army must prepare to fight a war on two fronts" (Al-Eqtisadiah, 15/2/2010), America pressured Pakistan to reduce its forces on the eastern front with India and focus its forces on the western front to fight the Mujahideen against America in Afghanistan and the tribal areas, all so that India could focus on the northern front with China. America also worked to increase trade exchange with India; the volume of US exports to India has grown rapidly in the last five years compared to any other country. According to estimates by the Confederation of Indian Industry, bilateral trade in services is likely to rise from $60 billion to over $150 billion in the next six years. However, India still fears land conflict with China, plus the fact that the rulers of India from the Congress Party are more loyal to Britain than to America; they are not ready to venture into a losing confrontation with China for the sake of American interests!
At that point, America saw fit to divert India's attention toward the East in the Pacific region, specifically in the South China Sea, and lure it with the presence of energy sources such as oil and gas in this region to compete with China and confront it within its Asia-Pacific strategy. This is indeed what happened; India agreed with Vietnam to explore for oil and gas in the ocean off the Spratly Islands, which are disputed with China. Following this, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Weimin stated: "We do not hope to see external forces in the South China Sea, nor do we want to see foreign companies engage in activities that violate China's sovereignty, rights, and interests" (Asharq Al-Awsat, 28/11/2011). Earlier, the People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, accused both India and Vietnam of making irresponsible attempts to confront China. America's attempts to encourage India regarding that region continued; on 22/7/2013, US Vice President Joe Biden visited India, making statements in Washington before the visit to pave the way and entice India toward the East in the Pacific, saying: "India is increasingly looking East as a force for security and growth, and for us, such news is welcome." He added: "We welcome India’s engagement in the region and welcome its efforts to develop new links in trade and transport by land and sea in the region" (IIP Digital, 23/7/2013). A month before that, on 24/6/2013, Kerry met with his Indian counterpart Shri Salman Khurshid in New Delhi, co-chairing the fourth round of the US-India Strategic Dialogue, where they "reaffirmed their shared vision for peace and stability in Asia and the Indian and Pacific Oceans, stressed their continued support for enhancing regional connectivity, and reaffirmed the importance of maritime security..." (IIP Digital, 24/6/2013). All this clearly indicates America's interest in pushing India toward the East in the Pacific, specifically in the South China Sea. However, India did not respond as required by America during the two years following the implementation of America's new Asia-Pacific plan and the push toward the East. This is due to reasons related to the policy of the ruling Congress Party, which is loyal to Britain, as well as India's fear of confronting China.
As for Australia, America has begun working to activate its role—as Australia revolves in the American orbit—and enhance cooperation with it in the economic and security fields to confront China within the US Asia-Pacific plan. For this purpose, top-level American officials, particularly former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, moved toward the city of Perth, Australia, to meet with their Australian counterparts. Clinton said during the launch of the US-Asia Centre at the University of Western Australia in Perth: "Australia forms a strategic intersection between two great oceans: the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, which provide the gateway for active trade and the crossroads of energy supplies flowing throughout the world." She added: "It was not surprising that foreign investment rose like this in Australia, including more than $100 billion from the United States, because these waters have increasingly become the heart of the global economy and form the main focus of expanded American engagement in the region, which we sometimes call our pivot to Asia." She also stated: "The United States never left the Asia-Pacific region, and the United States remains a Pacific power, and it is here to stay," adding, "The way the United States thinks about the Asia-Pacific region and the regions between the Indian and Pacific Oceans will be crucial for the future of Australia and the United States" (IIP Digital, 15/11/2012). Clinton also mentioned America's view of India and what it wants from it, saying: "One of the strategic priorities of the United States is to support India's policy to look East and encourage New Delhi to play a larger role in Asian institutions and affairs." She added: "The United States welcomes joint naval maneuvers between Australia and India in the future and is excited to work together with the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation, which Australia will chair in 2013 and which the United States has joined as a dialogue partner" (ibid.). These ideas indicate the American way of thinking regarding the region; it wants to harness Australia as an active element in countering Chinese movement in the area. This shows that it has not achieved its goals through India, which borders China by land, and that it wants Australia to participate with India in the waters of the South China Sea. Australia is closer to implementing American policy than India; it is considered a Western state that adopts capitalism and longs for colonialism like any Western capitalist state. Therefore, it participates with America in colonial invasions just as it used to participate with Britain, and it still participates with both because it revolves in their orbits.
As for Japan, America is working to bolster its strength and give it a larger role in defending the region against China. On 6/4/2014, it announced sending more missile defense ships to Japan, as stated by US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel: "The United States will send two additional destroyers equipped with missile defense systems to Japan by 2017, and this step comes in response to provocations from North Korea, which has threatened to conduct a new form of nuclear tests." He warned China against misusing its great power, saying: "Major powers should not use coercion and intimidation, as this could create conflicts," and added: "he wants to hold talks with China regarding the use of its military power and encourage transparency" (Reuters, 6/4/2014). He pointed to what Russia did in Crimea to warn China, which did something similar in disputed islands with Japan, saying: "You cannot go around the world and redraft boundaries and violate territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations by force, coercion or intimidation, whether it's in small islands in the Pacific or large nations in Europe." He said: "Another thing I will talk about with the Chinese is respect for their neighbors. Coercion and intimidation is a very deadly thing that only leads to conflict." The American Secretary had met last week with the defense ministers of Southeast Asian countries, where he warned of increasing American concern in the South China Sea (ibid.). The Japanese Kyodo news agency reported on 5/4/2014 that "it is expected that the US Secretary of Defense and Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera will discuss the issue of allowing Japan to exercise the right of self-defense by amending the Japanese constitution; in addition, Onodera will discuss the issue of transferring weapons and defense equipment in his meeting with the US Defense Secretary, and the two sides may reach an agreement to enhance cooperation in the field of defense equipment." This means America wants to give Japan a role in defending the region against China to reduce the burden on itself and to tickle the nationalist feelings of the Japanese who aspire to have their own power in their name to protect them, independent of America.
As for the impact of the success of the Congress Party or the BJP on American policy regarding its Asia-Pacific plan, it is undoubtedly affected. The Congress Party is ancient in its loyalty to the English and possesses political cunning to some extent taken from its "Old Lady," Britain. Therefore, it is troublesome for America, and at the same time, it maneuvers around America as Britain does; it establishes some military agreements and commercial relations with it but disrupts it in political relations and strategic issues. For example, the Congress Party drafted a statement in its election campaign in which it won power in 2004, clarifying its view of America and criticizing the policy of the BJP that preceded it. It stated: "It is sad that a great country like India has descended to the level of having a dependent relationship with the United States of America, where the US government takes India's (dependency) for granted. This has led to the BJP government's readiness to adapt to the priorities and policies of the United States without proper attention to India's own vital foreign policy and its national security interests." It is clear how troublesome this party is for America. Nevertheless, it did not cut off the Strategic Dialogue but returned to it in June 2010, which had begun during the era of President Bush in 2004. US Secretary of State Clinton, head of the American delegation at the India Dialogue Forum, described India as "an indispensable partner and a trusted friend." Therefore, since the Congress Party came to power after the fall of the pro-American BJP, it has become difficult for India to proceed with implementing America's plan to confront China unless America offers many incentives, as mentioned earlier. Even then, India resists, citing circumstances that are not new but existed during the time of the BJP, yet that party did not raise them when implementing American policy. For information, Britain has made the Congress Party traditionally and completely loyal to it and handed it governance since its departure; the party has not budged from it, entirely or mostly, except for a short period from 1998 to 2004 when the pro-American BJP won, then the Congress Party won again in the 2004-2009 elections.
As for the current elections that began on 7/4/2014 and whose results will be announced on 16/5/2014, some polling organizations have mentioned that results indicate the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies are expected to win. If public opinion expectations and election monitoring institutions in India are correct and the BJP succeeds—whether by a majority to form a government alone (which is somewhat unlikely) or if its results are significant enough to impose its conditions on any formed government—then America's policy of harassing China through India will be easier for America than it was during the time of the Congress Party. In fact, it will be easier for America to implement its policy as it was during the reign of the pro-US BJP, when America breathed a sigh of relief after decades of Congress Party rule. When the Congress Party came in 2004, it began a policy of disrupting American policy in India; rather, the Congress Party was maneuvering around America to extract agreements for its own benefit before taking a step to help America in its policy.
- As for the comparison between China and India, the balance clearly tilts toward China in several respects:
China, although it does not carry its mabda (ideology) and has made concessions on it in foreign, economic, and financial policy—as well as in many fields of life—still maintains it in governance in the name of the Communist Party to preserve the interests of the party and its followers, and for the cohesion and independence of the state. All this makes China move autonomously and gives it immunity from becoming a dependent state or a state revolving in the orbit of a major power; it makes it a state that dreams of becoming a global power. Liu Mingfu, a Chinese colonel and professor at the National Defense University who trains young officers, expressed this in his book "The China Dream," calling for his country to possess the strongest military in the world and to move quickly to topple the world champion, America. He called for abandoning humility regarding global goals and jumping to become number one in the world. He added that if China cannot become number one in the world and the supreme power in the 21st century, it will inevitably become marginalized. Thus, China has a sense of power and challenge. If it were not for the fact that it limits itself to preserving its region and accepts that its confrontation with America is merely a reaction to American moves toward its region—and does not go out to shake America in its own regions and areas of influence—and if it had not started adopting capitalism in many fields, especially the economy, its international voice would have been louder and its influence on American interests stronger. In any case, China has a sense of power and works so that its entity remains autonomously moving, even if within its regional sphere.
As for India, it has no mabda (ideology) and does not possess ideas from an ideology. Rather, the capitalist system is applied to it to ensure its dependency on the West, especially Britain, and not to revive it and make it an independent state. Like other dependent states in the region, the capitalist system was forced upon it by colonial power and is still imposed by force. Therefore, it does not move autonomously, and it lacks the incentive to launch with strength, speed, awareness, and self-planning. Thus, it remains a dependent state and not independent in its policy. It is noted that it moves slowly in the political field and is always under influence, neither influential nor proactive. It falls under influence either from Britain, its primary master, or from America, which extends its arms toward it and has created dependent political forces within it. Therefore, it is different from China in this regard; it is intellectually backward and not disciplined by specific intellectual rules. Those working in the political field are not disciplined by any foundations, and therefore financial and political corruption is rampant, almost encompassing all politicians. It is difficult for it to become a major power even regionally. The most it can become in the future is a satellite state, i.e., revolving in the orbit of another major state, whether America, Britain, or both together.
This is from a political standpoint. Economically, China's economy is four times the size of India's. While China has been able to reduce the level of poverty in its country, 66% of the world's poor are from India. India cannot compete with China economically; China has developed a large industrial sector, leading to its possession of large cash reserves that allowed it to influence the global economy. As for manufacturing in India, it is still far from China's level in production and manufacturing, especially heavy machinery and modern technology. This does not mean India lacks these things, but it lags behind China's level.
Militarily, China's official military budget is $119 billion, representing more than three times India's defense budget of $38 billion. China has made significant progress in modernizing its armed forces; it is now building its own industrial bases (manufacturing bases for large military equipment such as ships, tanks, and fighter jets) and expanding its fleet, while taking active steps to control its region. However, India has only recently begun developing its capabilities to fund a military modernization program that still suffers from many problems. India also remains one of the largest importers of military equipment in the world. Despite two decades of efforts to develop its domestic military capability, it has failed to develop significant industrial bases. Pieter D. Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said: "I don't think there's any other country in the world that has tried as hard as India to make weapons and failed so completely." (The World’s Largest Arms Importer, India Wants to Buy Local, New York Times, March 2014).
Thus, the comparison between China and India tilts the balance in favor of China many times over.
- In conclusion, America has worked to direct India toward the northern front for conflict with China after securing the western front with Pakistan, whose US-loyal rulers provided major concessions to India during the reign of the pro-US Bharatiya Janata Party. When the Congress Party returned to power, it showed a retreat in working on this front, known as the Line of Actual Control, due to India's fears of confrontation with China and the latter's threats, and because this party is loyal to the English, who do not encourage India to proceed with America's plans. At that point, America directed India to what it called the "Look East" policy, toward the Pacific region and specifically toward the South China Sea, enticing it with the presence of energy sources such as oil and gas there and its right to take its share. It made India cooperate with Vietnam, which also claims rights there and disputes with China over the Spratly Islands. Similarly, America pushed Australia toward India to attract it in an attempt to form a bloc of several countries to confront China. It is working to give a more effective role to Japan to reduce its own defense burdens. If the Bharatiya Janata Party succeeds in the current elections and reaches power again, it is likely that India's activity alongside America in the eastern region, i.e., in the South China Sea, will increase. As for the comparison between the strength of China and India, there is a vast difference in favor of China, many times over. If it were not for the fact that China limits itself to preserving its region and accepts that its confrontation with America is merely a reaction to American moves toward its region—and does not go out to shake America in its own regions and areas of influence—and if it had not started adopting capitalism in many fields, especially the economy, its international voice would have been louder and its influence on American interests stronger.